Hi!
On Mar 9, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On a similar note, Stewart's use of abort() has made me start to
wonder
if we need to either make more use of signals to handle shutdown,
or if
we should un-require them for the shutdown process. The advantage
of not
using them is simple... if we ever need to run on OS'es without
them it
makes the porting work simpler.
Which OS'es don't have?
I am thinking Windows lacks singals... I could be wrong though (and
while we don't support it today... we may just get it for free someday).
Honestly - abort() is essentially just throwing an exception without
throwing an exception - same overall issues and problems. So would
sending more signals.
Yep!
Right now to shutdown the server we need a signal. We could also do
this via creating a shutdown thread upon request (as an example).
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
